A W P v The Queen

A W P was convicted of two counts of incest and two counts of indecent acts with a child under 16 years of age. He was sentenced to a total of six years imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years. The appeal against sentence was heard by the Court of Appeal. The appeal concerned the sentence imposed on A W P, specifically whether it was appropriate in light of new evidence that had come to light since the original sentencing hearing. The new evidence was that A W P had a serious heart condition which had not been known to the sentencing judge at the time of the original sentencing hearing. This condition would make imprisonment significantly more burdensome for A W P.

The court was required to determine whether the new evidence was sufficient to warrant a reconsideration of the sentence imposed. The court noted that the seriousness of the offences committed by A W P was not in issue, and that the sentence imposed was within the range of sentences that could be imposed for such offences. However, the court also noted that the new evidence of A W P’s heart condition was relevant to the question of whether the sentence imposed was appropriate in all the circumstances. The court held that the new evidence did warrant a reconsideration of the sentence, as it would make imprisonment significantly more burdensome for A W P. The court accordingly allowed the appeal and resentenced A W P to six years imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years.

The court considered that the new evidence of A W P’s heart condition was relevant to the question of whether the sentence imposed was appropriate in all the circumstances. The court noted that the seriousness of the offences committed by A W P was not in issue, and that the sentence imposed was within the range of sentences that could be imposed for such offences. However, the court also noted that the new evidence of A W P’s heart condition was relevant to the question of whether the sentence imposed was appropriate in all the circumstances. The court held that the new evidence did warrant a reconsideration of the sentence, as it would make imprisonment significantly more burdensome for A W P. The court accordingly allowed the appeal and resentenced A W P to six years imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years.